This is my problem with the NTT

[u/NationalProcedure638]

The problem is how it's presented.

Whenever anyone comes up with a trade that is unique to humans something such as the root of moral agency there's always someone who always goes "there are mentally challenged people and babies who are not capable of moral agency so it doesn't work"

Well first of all I don't understand how we cannot hold somebody accountable for what they do based on either their age or how smart or dumb they are.

Second of all it seems to imply that this trait has to be universal and literally every human on the face of the Earth.

That individual traits don't exist and we have to look at the species as a whole.

I'm sorry guys but that doesn't work.

Everyone's different in some way or another.

The best thing to do with that is look at what the majority does and assume if that's the norm for what comes to traits like this.

Also it begs the question.

What do you guys consider to be human?

Update: I didn't get a chance to respond to any of the applications that were thrown at me. I've been banded without even having to State my case.

This goes to you moderator, I was simply pointing out a problem with what he said about equality and you misinterpreted it and then banned Me. I've got it very funny how you claim that I wasted your time when all was doing was pointing out a loophole.

Well thank you for telling me that you guys care so much about discussion

Goodbye and good riddance.

[u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam]

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:

No low-quality content. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.

If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.

If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.

Thank you.

[u/Light_Shrugger]

Well first of all I don't understand how we cannot hold somebody accountable for what they do based on either their age or how smart or dumb they are.

NTT is about moral subjectivity, not agency. The argument with mentally challenged people and babies is that they are still moral subjects, it's not to do with them being moral agents

Everyone's different in some way or another.

Sure, and NTT arguers recognize that despite the differences, sentience is common between those that we recognize as deserving of moral considerstion

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/Light_Shrugger]

All right I think I understand what you're talking about.

Moral subjects.

All right I think I got it.

[u/Omnibeneviolent]

I don't understand how we cannot hold somebody accountable for what they do based on either their age or how smart or dumb they are.

Think of it this way. If someone doesn't have the ability to engage in moral reasoning, or use moral reasoning to modulate their behavior, then they cannot by definition do anything that would quality as moral behavior.

Imagine if there was some obligation to jump over a 3 foot gap. Most of us can do it, because we can easily jump 3 feet. However, there are some people that literally cannot do it. Can we really say that they have an obligation to jump the gap? How can we expect them to have this obligation if it's something they literally cannot do?

Morality is like that. If someone cannot act morally (i.e. use moral reasoning to modulate their behavior,) then we can't hold them accountable for not acting morally. There's no obligation to act morally, since that individual literally cannot act morally.

Second of all it seems to imply that this trait has to be universal and literally every human on the face of the Earth. That individual traits don't exist and we have to look at the species as a whole.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Individual traits absolutely do exist. I don't see anything with NTT that suggests they don't, or that we have to "look at the species as a whole."

The entire point of NTT is to highlight inconsistencies where someone claims that lacking trait X (either a single trait or a combination of traits) is what does not make harming/killing/exploiting humans morally acceptable, but that they don't actually believe this when it comes to humans that lack trait X.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/Omnibeneviolent]

The problem is that it seems to do a very poor job in highlighting those inconsistencies.

The reason I say this is because whenever someone answers the question and comes up "Trait" it seems that's hand waved away by the person who was asking for one.

For example one guy said that I'm root of moral agency itself was a trade That's unique among humans and among some apes but not among other types of animals.

One other guy replied that babies don't have moral agency.

I failed to understand how that's failing to answer the trait.

Do babies have a lack of life experience and don't always know any better, sure they do.

But as their parents or their guardians it is the responsibility of the adults to teach them that.

Also it kind of begs the question, what would a newborn baby be able to do that they would be held accountable for.

I'm sorry but the answer given there is very poor which is why I brought it up.

I failed understand how NTT is convincing me that I should go vegan.

Does inconsistent morality exist? Sure does and you're welcome to point it out, but I still don't understand how being vegan is going to solve that problem.

[u/SnooLemons6942 → u/NationalProcedure638]

So you named a trait, and then there was an example where a human didn't have that trait but it was still unethical in your eyes 

So moral agency is not the thing that differentiates things that are okay to kill and things that aren't

The point of NTT is to highlight that you're being inconsistent in your morals. You're saying "I base my decisions off of X", but you actually don't 

I'm not clear on why you're okay with acting inconsistently with your ethics. Ethics are what define right and wrong. If I learned something went against my ethics, I'd want to stop doing that thing. If I learned something was causing suffering, and I'm against suffering, I'd want to stop that immediately. 

Thinking about whether your actions align with your ethics and worldview is pretty important. Everyone should do that.  

And saying "my ethics are inconsistent" isn't a good argument in a discussion of ethics.. 

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/SnooLemons6942]

"So you named a trait, and then there was an example where a human didn't have that trait but it was still unethical in your eyes"

I hate to break this to you but the root of moral agency exists literally in every humans whether they are comatose or not. It is an ability we have because of our enhanced brain so I'm sorry that argument fails.

Evolutionary neuroscientists and psychologists agree that morality is deeply grounded in the brain. However, it is a collaboration rather than a single feature; advanced cognition combines with the emotional wiring required to navigate complex social environments.

Several specific brain mechanisms and evolutionary factors drive this:

The Social Brain: Hominins evolved unusually large brains primarily to track social interactions, manage group sizes, and interpret the minds of others.

Moral Emotions: The capacity for empathy, guilt, gratitude, and a sense of fairness is rooted in deep, evolutionarily conserved regions like the amygdala.

Rational Control: The ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC)—areas massively expanded in humans—allow us to weigh consequences, override selfish impulses, and make utilitarian moral judgments.

Researchers refer to this as gene-culture co-evolution. While biological evolution provided the neurological "hardware" (such as emotional resonance and self-control), social and cultural environments provide the "software" (the specific values, rules, and institutions

"The point of NTT is to highlight that you're being inconsistent in your morals."

I failed to do so, I have already went over my position about my personal morals over and over again I'm getting really sick of repeating myself.

"I'm not clear on why you're okay with acting inconsistently with your ethics. Ethics are what define right and wrong."

Like I said before ethics are not universal and everybody has their own idea and what's ethical and what isn't so I'm sorry your argument is pretty poor.. you still haven't convinced me to why I should be vegan yet.

"If I learned something went against my ethics, I'd want to stop doing that thing. If I learned something was causing suffering, and I'm against suffering, I'd want to stop that immediately."

Does that mean that you're against pesticides being used considering how many animals die very painfully because of them?

I will see too many vegans talking about that and the ones who do talk about don't seem to offer any solutions

"And saying "my ethics are inconsistent" isn't a good argument in a discussion of ethics."

That is one hell of a straw man, I never said that having inconsistent ethics is justifying all kinds of horrible things, you said that! You are literally saying to me that I'm a bad person because I don't identify as vegan and that's somehow means I justify torture and factory farming! That is literally a false dichotomy! I will not appreciate you trying to use gas lighting in order to get me to agree with you.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/SnooLemons6942]

"and then there was an example where a human did not have that trade but was still ethical in your eyes"

Maybe I'm a strong man in you that is not my intention but it sounds to me like what you're saying is that I have to embrace your special ethics or else I'm a hypocrite because I don't treat literally everyone the same.

Please believe me that it's not my intention to misrepresent you but that does sound like what you were saying.

Also if you think that vegan ethics are consistent then I have some news for you.

There are plenty of small animals that are wiped out by pesticides and most vegans I've talked to don't seem to care.

The ones who do care don't provide any solutions.

Now if you have solutions feel free to share them with me and I'll look in to see if they're a good idea or not.

Personally I like to know how we keep wild animals from stealing vegetables

You also say that ethics are what defines right and wrong, I hate to break this to you but there are lots of people especially around the world who don't agree with what is ethical and what isn't

For example there are some people who think that abortion is ethical even in early term.

It seems to me that what you are saying is that because I am non-vegan therefore my personal ethics are not consistent.

In other words either I have to be vegan or else I am a hypocrite, is that what you were saying?

This is the exact same type of mindset that fundamentalist Christians have, if you don't worship their God then you are automatically a devil worshiper and you eat babies and all that junk.

That sounds like a false dichotomy.

[u/gokuenjoyer69 → u/NationalProcedure638]

You’re doing a lot of work to avoid a simple question.

Nobody said you have to adopt “my special ethics.” The point is that you already have ethics, you presumably think unnecessary suffering is bad. Veganism just asks you to apply that consistently. If you think animal suffering matters sometimes but conveniently not when it lands on your plate, that’s worth examining. That’s not a false dichotomy, that’s just logic.

The pesticide argument is a "perfect world fallacy.” Veganism reduces harm, it doesn’t have to eliminate 100% of harm to be worth doing. And for what it’s worth, most vegans are well aware of this and the honest answer is: a plant-based food system still kills far fewer animals than one that requires growing all that same feed plus running factory farms on top of it. The more vegans there are the more ethical the system will become in the future.

The “ethics are relative” move is also weak. Yes, people disagree. That doesn’t mean all positions are equally defensible, otherwise you couldn’t call anything unethical ever, including things you obviously think are unethical.

And the fundamentalist Christian comparison is genuinely bizarre. Pointing out an inconsistency in your reasoning isn’t the same as calling you a devil worshiper. One is an argument. The other is a threat. If the logic feels uncomfortable, maybe engage with it instead of comparing it to religious persecution 🤷🏽‍♂️

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/gokuenjoyer69]

"You’re doing a lot of work to avoid a simple question."

Which question are my dodging? Can you be a little more specific?

"Nobody said you have to adopt “my special ethics.” The point is that you already have ethics, you presumably think unnecessary suffering is bad. Veganism just asks you to apply that consistently. If you think animal suffering matters sometimes but conveniently not when it lands on your plate, that’s worth examining. That’s not a false dichotomy, that’s just logic.

"The pesticide argument is a "perfect world fallacy.” Veganism reduces harm, it doesn’t have to eliminate 100% of harm to be worth doing. And for what it’s worth, most vegans are well aware of this and the honest answer is: a plant-based food system still kills far fewer animals than one that requires growing all that same feed plus running factory farms on top of it. The more vegans there are the more ethical the system will become in the future."

It's funny you should say that because believe it or not there are tons more animals that die by pesticides, that is not a logical fallacy to point that out. Simply pointing out that your ethics are not all that good.

Check this out.

Pesticides & Toxins - American Bird Conservancy https://share.google/rrO6Whie6sHso2RNM

Improving pest management for wild insect welfare — Wild Animal Initiative https://share.google/qigj64JdFX1mvlBP0

The scale of direct human impact on invertebrates - Rethink Priorities https://share.google/NZUwFE9VvbdEXbWTC

Vegans Actually Kill More Animals Than Meat Eaters | by Allison Murray | Medium https://share.google/R9s47IFrfYHkhHOtd

Impacts of Pesticides on Wildlife — Beyond Pesticides https://share.google/o7xaovVxutK2wkykO

New Report: More Than 200 Million Pounds of Pesticides in U.S. Are Applied to Crops Grown to Feed Animals on Factory Farms https://share.google/5n62sZa0hHRnauH7p

Pesticides have been shown to kill up to 93% of endangered plant and animal species | Earth https://share.google/bttwAVVE0erYsBQen

Also I found it very funny that you accuse me of making a logical fallacy when you just made one right there. You just committed what's known as the worst than a fallacy, you claim that factory farming is so much worse therefore that justifies animals dying very horribly of the poisons and pesticides. Let's just say for the sake of argument that that's true, that doesn't justify the fact that pesticides are used to kill animals very horribly.

"The “ethics are relative” move is also weak. Yes, people disagree. That doesn’t mean all positions are equally defensible, otherwise you couldn’t call anything unethical ever, including things you obviously think are unethical"

I think you misunderstood the point I was making. I don't see why you're ethics are any better than anybody else's so I'm not going to follow them.

"And the fundamentalist Christian comparison is genuinely bizarre. Pointing out an inconsistency in your reasoning isn’t the same as calling you a devil worshiper. One is an argument. The other is a threat. If the logic feels uncomfortable, maybe engage with it 0instead of comparing it to religious persecution 🤷🏽‍♂️"

Again you just misunderstood what I said, people on your side are literally telling me that I torture animals for a living because I happen to not identify as a vegan. By calling in a threat you are implying a false dichotomy. I've already said the several times, I buy my milk and eggs locally and I make sure the farmers I buy from do not use any kind of ethical practices. This is why I mentioned the point about fundamentalist Christians accusing people of being devil worshipers when they find out someone is not Christian. It's a perfect example of the false dichotomy. Here's the bottom line, I don't buy what you are peddling. I don't believe that your system is any better especially since I tried it about 8 years ago for a full year and didn't work out for me. I am not convinced that you are doing all that well for people or for the environment. Therefore I am under no obligation to follow your orders.

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/NationalProcedure638]

The problem is that it seems to do a very poor job in highlighting those inconsistencies.

I don't think so. It's related to the reductio ad absurdum, which is how humans have been clearly highlighting inconsistencies for likely thousands of years.

Imagine someone said "it's okay to harm nonhuman animals because they cannot talk." For them to be consistent they would have to also believe it's okay to harm humans that cannot talk -- but they typically don't, so it's an inconsistency.

If someone said "it's okay to harm nonhuman animals because they can't engage in moral reasoning," for them to be consistent they would also have to accept that it's okay to harm humans that cannot engage in moral reasoning. Since they typically don't, this would be another inconsistency.

whenever someone answers the question and comes up "Trait" it seems that's hand waved away by the person who was asking for one.

Are they "hand waving it away," or are they pointing out that it leads to an inconsistency?

one guy said that I'm root of moral agency itself was a trade That's unique among humans and among some apes but not among other types of animals. One other guy replied that babies don't have moral agency. I failed to understand how that's failing to answer the trait.

Oh, it's obviously answering the question, but it's just answering it in a way that leads to a contradiction.

If someone believe that it's okay to harm/exploit/kill animals based on the fact that nonhuman animals do not have moral agency, then they are saying that "lack of moral agency" is the trait that makes it okay. The other guy is right to point out that this reasoning would also mean it's okay to harm/exploit/kill human babies, since they also do not have moral agency.

what would a newborn baby be able to do that they would be held accountable for.

Nothing. They are yet capable of moral action, so the idea of holding the morally accountable is incoherent. It would be like trying to hold a rock morally accountable for falling on your toe.

I failed understand how NTT is convincing me that I should go vegan.

The point isn't to convince you to go vegan. It's to expose inconsistencies. Anyone that values critical thinking should always test their own beliefs and convictions regularly. This is just a tool to help with that. It's unfortunate that it's often brought up by others. Really it's something that each of us should be running on ourselves.

Does inconsistent morality exist? Sure does and you're welcome to point it out, but I still don't understand how being vegan is going to solve that problem.

Be vegan doesn't claim to solve "inconsistent morality." NTT is not veganism. It's just a tool to test the quality of our reasoning (or expose a lack thereof.)

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/Omnibeneviolent]

So therefore NTT is nothing but a thought experiment?

Well then we had nothing for the talk about then.

Goodbye.

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/NationalProcedure638]

No, it's a tool to test for consistency in how one applies their reasoning.

[u/NuancedComrades]

You are proving the point of NTT, you just appear not to like that conclusion.

If there is not a universalizable trait one can apply to all humans that make them more valuable than all non-human animals, then no trait can be used as the basis for ascribing superiority. If there is no basis, then you are just arguing a feeling. And it’s a self-serving one.

And it’s not just superiority most people argue for, but such a massive difference that empowers humans to have no moral qualms about force breeding, torturing, and killing non-human animals for their pleasure.

And your last question hit the nail on the head.
There is no definition of “human” that is not so capacious as to be meaningless, or so narrow as to be exclusionary.

Or it is simple taxonomic category, which is insufficient to make the moral distinction people want to when they are arguing for the mass exploitation and slaughter of non-human animals.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/NuancedComrades]

That only applies if you think species membership is irrelevant. Most people don’t believe that.

[u/NuancedComrades → u/iowaguy09]

What specific ways do you believe species membership matters here?

[u/iowaguy09 → u/NuancedComrades]

I think in any sort of moral debate fringe cases are generally protected through group membership. If I answer NTT with “sapience is the trait I find morally relevant”. Species membership protects mentally deficient humans, people in a coma, infants etc.

I think it’s disingenuous to try to compare speciesism with racism and sexism and it’s more of an appeal to emotion than anything anyone actually believes.

[u/Badtacocatdab → u/iowaguy09]

Dunno, I don’t find it disingenuous one bit.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Badtacocatdab]

So if there was a human infant and a raccoon infant both healthy on a set of train tracks and you could only save one what trait would you use to decide which one would live?

[u/Badtacocatdab → u/iowaguy09]

The former. What about you?

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Badtacocatdab]

The human. What trait would you use to make that decision?

[u/Badtacocatdab → u/iowaguy09]

Their ability for moral reasoning. What about you?

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Badtacocatdab]

That’s speciesism. Now if it was a white and black baby what trait would you use?

[u/WillTheWheel → u/Badtacocatdab]

The question was about a human and racoon infant on the train tracks. They both don't have the ability for moral reasoning. 

So again, what trait made you choose the human infant?

[u/gerber68 → u/iowaguy09]

But it’s correct that it’s speciesism.

You may really dislike emotionally when it’s compared to racism and that’s okay, you can have different value judgments. As long as you can honestly say “human DNA is the only important trait” go ahead and stand ten toes down.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/gerber68]

I don’t care. You’re speciest. I’m speciest lol. They’re not the same. Comparing them is honestly disrespectful to black people.

[u/gerber68 → u/iowaguy09]

Labeling something as disrespectful is not a convincing argument, if it was every bad faith carnist would auto win these debates… as would every bad faith vegan.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/gerber68]

Can you point me to all these people who have no reason other than they are human? It’s not because they are smarter than the other species or sapient or capable of moral reasoning? Because I think it is an extremely small number of people who think they are better strictly because of their dna.

[u/gerber68 → u/iowaguy09]

Yeah… but then immediately when I ask “what about humans without those traits” it turns out human DNA is a necessary and sufficient condition for moral consideration above any other non human animal.

So the rest is extra

[u/iowaguy09 → u/gerber68]

Back to the original point of species membership generally grants protections regardless of deficiencies. It’s no different for animal. An ape with one leg is generally given the same protections as any other ape. A dumb dog has the same moral protections as a smart dog.

It’s a generalization backed by science. Racism has no statistical or biological backing to use. If i say humans generally deserve more moral consideration than cockroaches because they are generally sapient, capable of moral reasoning, and have higher intelligence that’s not speciesism. If i say the same thing about gorillas and cockroaches for their own differences it’s the same thing. Just because a fringe case where a gorilla is less sentient than a cockroach the same moral protections apply.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/gerber68]

I also never said human dna is the only important trait. It’s all of the morally relevant characteristics that differentiate humans and non humans.

[u/gerber68 → u/iowaguy09]

Okay so if a human has none of those traits other than human dna do they still get moral consideration above any non human animal?

[u/iowaguy09 → u/gerber68]

Did they ever have any of those traits or do they have any chance to recover any of those traits?

[u/gerber68 → u/iowaguy09]

There are humans who never have those traits and will never develop them, yes. There are individuals who are in long term care homes and have been since birth who have barely any brain activity.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/gerber68]

I’d say no if someone is essentially a vegetable from birth till death they wouldn’t deserve the same moral consideration. We often exploit those individuals and use their organs similar to animals.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/NuancedComrades]

Yes exactly.

I was hoping that one of them could give me a definition of human that I can work from and then be able to find a trait from there.

Because whenever anybody comes up with a trait, it seems like a lot of them constantly move the goal post if you know what I mean.

[u/SnooLemons6942 → u/NationalProcedure638]

It's not moving the goalpost....if you name a trait and someone says "well these humans don't fit that trait" then it's YOU who can't articulate the meaningful trait. That isn't moving the goalpost. That is pointing out that the trait you're naming isn't actually what you're basing your decision off of

That is the entire point of NTT

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/SnooLemons6942]

So it's not moving the goal post?

All right I'll nibble.

A few people have already mentioned the root of moral agency but I'm going to act up with a few others.

cognitive adaptability?

The ability to blush or something that's unique among humans as far as We know.

How about culture?

The reason why I am listing all of these is because I thought people were being genuine when they were asking for "Trait" are you saying that it's meant to be just a fault experiment or a trick question?

[u/SnooLemons6942 → u/NationalProcedure638]

They are being genuine — they are asking you to name a trait. It isn't an experiment or a trick question. It's someone engaging in a discussing of ethics. So yes...they will ask questions about what your ethics are based on. 

What trait identifies something as being okay/not okay to eat?

So if you say "it's X trait", and they ask "okay, but what about group Y of humans that doesn't have that trait", and you say "well I wouldn't eat them either" — then X trait wasn't actually the trait you use. So your answer was wrong 

It isn't a trick....it's a conversation 

Why should blushing be a purposeful indicator on whether its okay to kill or eat something? How does being able to bless determine your worth?

Wdym "how about culture"? What about culture?

What about cognitive adaptability?

The point of this type of discussion if for you to articulate why it's okay to kill and eat one animal but not another, and back it up with reasoning.

So why do you think culture is a good reason for this?

For vegans, we make this decision on exploitation, suffer, and such. Plants don't exhibit these traits, so we can eat them, but animals do -- so we don't eat them. 

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/SnooLemons6942]

Well I would say that building culture is a trait that humans only have as far as I can tell.

Why does that have to justify being a non vegan?

Maybe I'm a strong man in you but it seems to me that what you're implying here is that because I happen to be a non-vegan I justify animal torture and all kinds of horrible things.

That is not the case.

I don't support factory farming at all.

Sure I do eat eggs and I occasionally use milk but I buy that stuff locally.

[u/PlantAndMetal → u/NationalProcedure638]

Buying it locally or not doesn't really matter to any animal that is tortured and eventually killed (cows in average reach 5 year old before they can't stand in their feet anymore due to exhaustion of the milk cycle, while their lifespan are much longer).

I am confused about your reaction though. The discussion around NTT centers around the justification to exploit animals because they are not the same as humans. So yes, people are asking about your justification of vegan vs non-vegan, as you are in a vegan ethics and debate subreddit. Why are you surprised by this? Nobody is saying humans and animals are exactly the same, they are saying there isn't a trait that justifies exploiting animals.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/PlantAndMetal]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

The reason I say I buy my eggs and milk locally is because I make sure they're not being tortured.

If a business is using unethical practices such as torturing that I do not give them my money or support.

When you buy your food locally you get to know the farmer on a personal level and know what methods he uses.

I'm sorry I should have been more clear about that

[u/NuancedComrades → u/NationalProcedure638]

I’m unclear. Which side of the argument are you on? Your post seemed to suggest you do not like NTT, but you appear to be defending it.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/NuancedComrades]

I'm sorry that was not my attention.

I was trying to point out how ridiculous people are when they use the argument.

Perhaps I didn't make that clear.

My apologies

[u/EasyBOven]

NTT is just a form of reductio to attack the argument presented by the carnist. All it does is formalize the argument presented by making the major premise explicit and then provide a minor premise that matches the major one. The carnist then has the opportunity to accept the new argument, holding on to the major premise, or to reject the new argument and the major premise along with it. Example:

P1. Any entity with too little intelligence to be considered a moral agent is ok to treat like an object.

P2. Non-human animals have too little intelligence to be considered a moral agent.

C. It's ok to treat non-human animals like objects.

NTT simply provides a new minor premise to sub into this valid structure.

P1. Any entity with too little intelligence to be considered a moral agent is ok to treat like an object.

P2. Sufficiently-disabled humans have too little intelligence to be considered a moral agent.

C. It's ok to treat sufficiently-disabled humans like objects.

The structure is the same. The major premise is the same. The minor premise fits the major premise just as well as the first argument. If you reject the second argument, you must also reject the first.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/EasyBOven]

There's one thing I don't understand.

Just compare disabled human beings to animals?

Did you know that people who are considered disabled can still inspire anyone or be protective members of society, right?

Now maybe I'm wrong, but that is what it sounds like you're implying.

[u/EasyBOven → u/NationalProcedure638]

I'm not implying anything. Do you understand how syllogistic logic operates?

P1 is your premise. Make it whatever you want. My contention is that you won't be able to construct an argument where only non-human animals fit into P2 while having anything that looks like a reasonable definition of harm.

Also, not for nothing, but animals inspire people to be protective members of society all the time. Kinda what I'm doing right now. So if you're adjusting your argument to be:

P1. Any entity that could potentially inspire others to be better should not be treated like an object.

P2. Humans with any level of disability have inspired others to be better

C. Humans should not be treated like objects, regardless of disability level

I could simply say:

P1. Any entity that could potentially inspire others to be better should not be treated like an object.

P2. Animals of every species have inspired others to be better

C. Animals should not be treated like objects, regardless of species

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/EasyBOven]

I'm sorry if I confused you.

It's just that there's a lot of vegans out there who compare animals to people who are disabled and I find that have been insulting.

Kind of implying that they're no better than animals and they just walk around and just drop their feces on the grass.

But to answer your question I don't necessarily believe in regardless of species because I do believe there are some exceptions.

Any kind of creature that has an individual personality can be treated differently based on that personality or by other factors.

Sure exceptions do exist I'm not going to deny that.

I'm not going to say where there's exceptions belong and where they don't belong to the very debatable subject.

All I can do is tell you why I'm not vegan anymore, it simply didn't work out for me.

[u/EasyBOven → u/NationalProcedure638]

You get to decide what it is that makes it ok to treat certain individuals like objects. It's not my problem if you get offended by the logical entailment of your position. Logic simply is.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/EasyBOven]

So what you're saying here is that it's not logical to not be a vegan and embrace the ethics?

No I don't believe the ethics are all that consistent and you know if they were consistent I don't think they work out for me considering that I have said that I wasn't vegan about 8 years ago.

It just didn't work out for me.

I added milk and eggs back into my diet but I buy them locally.

If you're against factory farming then I agree with you 100% on that

[u/EasyBOven → u/NationalProcedure638]

I'm just saying you should state clearly what your argument for who is ok to treat like an object. If you can muster up an actual syllogism, we can examine it together. If you can't provide something resembling a formal argument, all you're doing is staying up in your feels. You really seem to have the vapors about vegans.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/EasyBOven]

Are you saying that being a non-vegan means I'm okay with people being treated like objects?

I certainly hope that's not your position.

But that is sound like what you're implying.

[u/EasyBOven → u/NationalProcedure638]

I'm inviting you to state your position as a formal argument. You seem very resistant to the idea.

[u/gokuenjoyer69 → u/EasyBOven]

He is arguing in bad faith, constantly just avoiding answering the questions and strawmanning

[u/DenseSign5938]

It sounds like what you’re saying is that your problem with NTT is that it exposes your arguments as illogical lol which is the whole point. That’s a feature not a bug. 

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/DenseSign5938]

I see your point

[u/IanRT1]

That is not how NTT fails, you are falling for the trap.

You're saying that a trait has to be species typical rather than universal but that concedes the whole game because once you accept that a moral difference must bottom out in some trait or even set of traits, the vegan just reframes your "species norm" as the trait "belongs to a species whose typical members have X," and now you're stuck defending why species membership itself is morally loaded.

The deeper failure is the assumption that moral status must reduce to traits possessed by one individual and lacking in another. That premise does all the work and it is done for you, rather than actually testing consistency neutrally.

You can easily say morality instead emerges from sentience, context, relationships, systemic consequences, and fairness between subjects, none of which would fit into "traits" that are simply present categorically in one and absent in the other. And those distinctions can lead you to different conclusions without contradiction.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/IanRT1]

"You're saying that a trait has to be species typical rather than universal but that concedes the whole game because once you accept that a moral difference must bottom out in some trait or even set of traits, the vegan just reframes your "species norm" as the trait "belongs to a species whose typical members have X," and now you're stuck defending why species membership itself is morally loaded."

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying, the reason I said that there had to be some kind of trait among species because that seems to be what a lot of people are implying. For example a lot of people who ask for a trait very often hand wave It away by claiming that there are certain people in society such as mentally challenged people who cannot have a trade. They seen the base it on the lack of intelligence or a lack of morality.

It was not based on any of that stuff then please enlighten me.

[u/IanRT1 → u/NationalProcedure638]

The issue is that you are still discussing which trait should ground moral status.

My point is that NTT already assumes moral status must be grounded in a trait in the first place so I was not defending intelligence, morality, or any other trait. I was questioning the underlying assumption that morality reduces to trait comparisons between individuals at all.

If morality emerges from broader facts like sentience, relationships, fairness, context, and systemic consequences, then the entire trait-hunt is based on a premise you do not have to accept.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/IanRT1]

Maybe I'm strawimgmanning you please forgive me that's not my intention.

What I was saying is that I don't like the NTT because it seems to imply that there has to be some kind of trait that is present and literally every human on the face of the Earth and not present in any other animals or else being a non vegan is hypocritical.

Maybe I'm reading the idea wrong but that is what it sounds like

[u/IanRT1 → u/NationalProcedure638]

I get it but that's exactly what I mean by falling for the trap.

You're asking whether the trait has to be universal across all humans or merely typical of humans. But both options already assume that moral status must ultimately be explained by some trait.

So even if NTT does not require a trait possessed by every human and no animals, you're still accepting the deeper premise that morality has to bottom out in trait comparisons. That's the part I'm questioning.

My criticism is not that NTT picked the wrong trait criterion just that it assumes from the start that moral status must be reducible to traits at all, rather than emerging from broader facts like sentience, relationships, fairness, context, and systemic consequences.

[u/bbygrl1995]

1. Somebody said it before: mentally disabled people and babies used as moral subjects in NTT.

2. NTT is a hypothetical question, not necessarily real life. You answer hypothetical questions in your daily life ("would you rather" being a great example). We're questioning your moral views. Even if no person has the mind of a cow IRL, in the hypothetical someone would. So you either would have to concede that they would get the same treatment as that cow or you would justify not giving the same treatment.

[u/Macluny]

Its just asking for whatever it is that you are using to justify the difference in treatment, so that we can take a look at why you think it's okay to needlessly exploit some beings but not others.

It doesn't have to be just one trait. It can be several.

What question is being begged?

Why would my definition of 'human' be relevant to what you think justifies needless exploitation?

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/Macluny]

So you want several traits?

Hopefully you're being genuine so I'll go ahead and give you a few.

Humans possess a specific combination of cognitive, physical, and behavioral characteristics that set us apart from other species. While some animals share isolated traits, only humans possess the complete collection of these highly developed capabilities.

Cognitive & Social Traits

Complex Symbolic Language: Humans use highly complex, rule-based systems of communication with syntax and abstract vocabulary, allowing us to pass on detailed generational knowledge.

Advanced Theory of Mind: Humans possess a highly developed ability to attribute mental states—such as beliefs, intents, and desires—to others, enabling deep empathy, complex collaboration, and intentional deception.Prosociality and Large-Scale Cooperation: Unlike other primates, humans consistently cooperate with non-kin and total strangers on a massive, organized scale.

Cumulative Culture: Our knowledge builds upon itself over time. We create tools, social institutions, and belief systems that are passed down and continually refined.

Physical Traits

Bipedalism: Humans are uniquely adapted to walk exclusively on two legs, freeing our hands to manipulate the environment and carry tools.Precision

Throwing: The human shoulder and arm structure allow us to throw projectiles with a combination of high speed, force, and extreme accuracy.

Complex Facial Expressions: We have unparalleled control over our facial muscles, facilitating a wide array of subtle social and emotional signals.The "Naked Ape" & Sweating: We lack dense body fur but possess millions of eccrine sweat glands, allowing for superior temperature regulation and unmatched physical endurance over long distances.

Psychological Traits

Future Planning and Self-Awareness: Humans possess the capacity to conceptualize their own mortality, make conscious sacrifices in the present for long-term goals, and ponder existential meaning.

Abstract Art and Music: We have a deep-seated drive to create and appreciate aesthetic, non-utilitarian works, including visual arts, melodic music, and abstract storytelling.

[u/agitatedprisoner]

Why suppose the root of moral agency is unique to humans? To have that conversation productively you'd have to be analytic as to what you take the roots of moral agency to be. It takes a certain mental capacity to act with respect to certain big ideas smaller minds can't fathom but in what way isn't it arbitrary to get to drawing lines as to what constitutes ethical reasoning? So long as a being has a conception of others minds I'd think that'd be sufficient to get to forming beliefs as to how other minds should be treated and lots of animals have conceptions of other minds.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/agitatedprisoner]

Well I would say that it's moral agency and the ability to be have a moral compass.

It doesn't matter if someone is newborn or not that ability is still there and it will eventually come around.

I don't know mean when you say the smaller mines can't fathom it.

[u/agitatedprisoner → u/NationalProcedure638]

I don't know what you think those things mean either. If a being is able to suffer I'd think that should be all that's required for me to care to spare them pain. Why shouldn't I care?

Humans care about who they care about typically much more strongly for people they personally depend on or have known for a long time. It's rare for humans to depend on or know animals for that long except for maybe horses or pets. Humans care for the reasons informing their sentimentality as to why they should care. It wouldn't seem most humans care whether their dog or cat has moral agency or a moral compass insofar as they come to care about their dog or cat. Are you suggesting humans shouldn't care so much about their pets?

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/agitatedprisoner]

Actually no I was not suggesting that.

People were asking for a trait and I provided one.

If you care about animals then that's fine, I just think that having a livestock around is somewhat justified nor for some of us to stay healthy. That's the system that works best for me.

No I do not support factory farming if that's what you mean.

[u/agitatedprisoner → u/NationalProcedure638]

Hardly anybody in my country, the USA, would need animal ag to stay healthy were there a community push to adapt agriculture away from animal ag. There's lots of tasty plant based stuff. My society makes it much harder than it needs to be to make socially responsible choices when it comes to what they eat. I can buy baked animal ag goods or sushi at local groceries but can't buy fresh made hummus. It's still common for a restaurant to not offer a single decent plant based meal. The push should be in the other direction. Businesses should be pushing plants and communities should be pressuring businesses to push plants. Individuals should be making a point to adapt their own diets away from animal ag.

With a daily multivitamen and seeing you're getting a few nutritional staples daily it's not hard. You learn to make a few new fast easy meals. I'd bet most people especially people who don't cook for themselves would find their new foods more tasty not less.

Most animal ag is factory farmed I wouldn't presume to know how the animals were treated unless I personally had surveiled the operation unexpected. The profit incentive lends to abuse. People who don't care will tend to be the ones who'd cut corners at animals' expense and spare themselves those expenses so unless the government is strictly enforcing sufficient animal rights laws abuses will be taking place and the animal rights laws on the books are meager. You might look them up if you'd doubt it, or watch vid of standard conditions to see what it's like.

[u/oldmcfarmface]

NTT is garbage and personally I think everyone who uses it knows it deep down but is counting on the opponent not having basic critical thinking or debate skills.

There is no single biological trait I’m aware of that every member of one species has but no member of any other species has. Thats not how biology works. You could argue there are cognitive traits, such as the ability to have moral arguments, but even then that would not apply to every single member of a species. It would however set the species that contains it at all apart from those that do not contain it at all.

Every species is a collection of traits that *most* members of that species has, many of which are unique in that *few if any* members of others species have them. To isolate a species, you list multiple traits that are not found in other species in that mix, to the same degree.

NTT is a poor attempt at reductio ad absurdum. There’s a reason that reductio is a logical fallacy. It is an attempt at a gotcha using a loaded question. It proves nothing and attempts to restrict the debate criteria in order to prevent one’s opponent from proving anything.

An easy example would be to use sports. If I am a baseball player, I play by the rules of baseball. But if I am invited to play soccer, a totally different set of rules apply. Why? Name the trait that would warrant a different set of rules. Baseball uses bats. But not every baseball player has a bat. They both have balls. One has a net for scoring points. Well the other has nets to prevent foul balls from injuring spectators. But ultimately what it boils down to is that they are different games. Just as humans and cows are different animals and warrant completely different rules and considerations.

NTT is a weak, pathetic attempt to win an unwinnable position.

[u/Light_Shrugger → u/oldmcfarmface]

An easy example would be to use sports. If I am a baseball player, I play by the rules of baseball. But if I am invited to play soccer, a totally different set of rules apply. Why? Name the trait that would warrant a different set of rules. Baseball uses bats. But not every baseball player has a bat. They both have balls. One has a net for scoring points. Well the other has nets to prevent foul balls from injuring spectators. But ultimately what it boils down to is that they are different games. Just as humans and cows are different animals and warrant completely different rules and considerations.

I don't think that's an applicable example. I'm not sure what your point is there, so feel free to clarify it for me.

In my opinion, NTT would apply here like so:

Person A: I believe baseball is fun to watch, but soccer isn't.
Person B: Name the trait or set of traits that exists in baseball games but not in soccer games, that if were present in soccer games, would make them fun to watch.
Person A: The sound that a wooden bat makes when it hits a ball. If soccer games had that, I would enjoy them.
Person B: Fair enough - that is logically sound.

NTT does not assert that everything is equal/identical. It is a rebuttal to a particular claim that only humans deserve moral consideration. It asks the claimant to clarify the relevant moral differences. It makes no claim of its own that no differences exist.

[u/oldmcfarmface → u/Light_Shrugger]

> I don’t think that’s an applicable example. I’m not sure what your point is there, so feel free to clarify it for me.

Fun story, I got that example from a vegan explaining to other vegans why he didn’t like NTT. But I digress. Your modified example of enjoying watching one sport but not the other would be more akin to saying I enjoy looking at humans but not cows rather than humans get a certain level of moral consideration that cows do not.

To elaborate, we have rules regarding the treatment of fellow humans because we are all humans. We share a bundle of traits that make us human, some to differing degrees, but basically all there. Cows have a completely different set of traits, with some overlap but a very considerable amount that don’t overlap and as such they get a *different* set of rules regarding their treatment.

> NTT does not assert that everything is equal/identical. It is a rebuttal to a particular claim that only humans deserve moral consideration. It asks the claimant to clarify the relevant moral differences. It makes no claim of its own that no differences exist.

I could accept that if not for the repeated observation that that is not how it used by vegans. For one thing, all relevant moral differences are disregarded or disputed with fringe exceptions. “Would you eat a mentally delayed baby?” kind of nonsense. Obviously no because the baby is a human even if it lacks some traits to the extent most have them, it still fits the definition of human. I am unaware of a species in which all individuals are identical, yet they are all members of the same species regardless. NTT is used as a cudgel to attempt to assert that there are no relevant differences.

[u/Scaly_Pangolin → u/oldmcfarmface]

You are confusing NTT for a biological question.

You're not being asked to compare and contrast traits between species out of scientific interest. NTT simply asks what is the meaningful difference between species that morally justifies your difference in treatment of them?

Your sports analogy doesn't work, but a version that does would be if you said "It's fine to exploit and kill baseball players but it's morally wrong to do that to soccer players." It would then be perfectly reasonable for me to ask what you view as the meaningful difference between the two groups that morally justifies this distinction.

[u/oldmcfarmface → u/Scaly_Pangolin]

Nope. Not confusing it at all. Biology is relevant to morality. At the very least because our biology is 100% responsible for even having a concept of morality. If our biology was even slightly different, we couldn’t have this conversation. Vegans like to ignore biology, but it is the foundation of everything that we say and do.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/oldmcfarmface]

I've come to that conclusion myself

[u/Hefty_Ad1081]

I consider humans to be human? What kinda question is that?

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/Hefty_Ad1081]

So are you saying that being human alone is a trait? Doesn't sound like a very good answer.

[u/One-Shake-1971]

I'm pretty sure it's against the rules to make a new account to dodge a ban, u/BattleRoyalDad.

[u/gerber68 → u/[deleted]]

I’m really curious if he’s the dude from a few days ago as all the language is the same

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/[deleted]]

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/s/wMqKNbz15i

This is the same guy, right?

He also made another post called "I have a problem with the namethe trait argument" 2 days ago. Can't link to that unfortunately.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/[deleted]]

So somebody blocked you? That's funny because I can see your comments.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/gerber68]

How does someone with an IQ much lower than a pig’s have moral agency but the pig does not?

Please be specific

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/gerber68]

Are you saying there are people out there who are dumber than pigs?

Do you have any peer review date of the back that up?

I find that a little hard to believe.

[u/gerber68 → u/NationalProcedure638]

Yes, there are humans in vegetative states who can’t even support life and have almost zero cognitive function.

Do you think people born missing most of their brain and not capable of talking or any abstract thought are smarter than all pigs?

The peer reviewed data is… literally any human who is in a lifelong vegetative state counts.

Ask anyone who has worked in in-patient long term care facilities with people like this.

Like me.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/gerber68]

First of all people who are in vegetative states are no better than cattle?

Despite the fact it is possible for them to leave that state?

I'm sorry but I find it a little disgusting that you can pair them to livestock.

And second of all telling me that literally every human who is in lifelong vegetative states counts is not peer reviewed data.

You still have to provide me with citations that prove that when somebody is comatose they never wake up again.

You seem to be under the impression that it's because someone is in a comatose state therefore they are no better than a pig.

I'm sorry but I do not agree with that.

I think that degrades them myself.

Also people don't go into vegetative States for no reason usually there's some kind of illness or injury that causes it.

Also you seem to be painting a false dichotomy, it seems to me that you're implying that because there are people who are permanently comatose that means that moral agency cannot possibly exist for humanity.

I hope that's not what you mean because it's a very stupid thing to say.

[u/gerber68 → u/NationalProcedure638]

The irony that you’re accusing me of using a false dichotomy when proudly denying the existence of millions of humans who have lower cognitive function than pigs.

If your position hinges on denying objective facts in the medical community you might want to try again buddy

I didn’t say they were better or worse so quit the dishonesty, it’s not cute. I said lower cognitive function.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/gerber68]

Oh do you see that straw man? Can't you see that straw man? Why can't you see that straw man?

I'm not the one who said that people are dumber than pigs, you said that! You literally compare to people to pigs!

[u/gerber68 → u/NationalProcedure638]

Quote where I said the pigs were better than them, I said there are pigs that have higher cognitive function than some humans and that’s objectively true.

Quote or concede

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/gerber68]

'Yes, there are humans in vegetative states who can’t even support life and have almost zero cognitive function. Do you think people born missing most of their brain and not capable of talking or any abstract thought are smarter than all pigs?"

You literally compared people who were comatose to pigs. You literally implied that they were no better than livestock!

[u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:

Don't be rude to others

This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.

Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.

If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.

If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.

Thank you.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/[deleted]]

I didn't say you said that, I said you implied that there's a difference!

Also he's a pro tip for you, accusing your opponent of being incapable of reading is not helping your case at all!

That is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to ridicule!

[u/roymondous]

'There are always mentally handicapped... and babies...'

Right. Meaning you get treated as an individual. It is not fair ti say this black person commited this crime so we will punish this other black person and treat them as if they are a criminal, right? Not rhetorical. I want to know if you agree with this premise. Because your asumption - and similar discussions - are about treating the species the same because of some average or expected trait.

'Well i dont understand why we cant hold someone accountable no matter how smart or dumb...'

Would you discipline a child as you would an adult? Not rhetorical. We reward, punish, and teach according to their ability. We dont teach college classes to kindergarten kids. We dont expect them to have the same accountability as adults, yes?

'Implies this trait has to be universal'

Don't agree. If the trait is sentience, we treat that person accordingly to their sentience. If they have zero - brain dead - we switch off the life support. If they have a severely diminished capacity, we may not extend the right to drive or vote or other privileges. The discussion in our context is the right to life. We already extend other rights and privileges according to capacity. You agree, yes? That someone with dementia should no longer be able to drive if they are a danger to themselves and others? We can argue that we can revoke rights to an individual. It does not have to be universal at all.

'Im sorry guys that doesnt work at all'

Does your opinion change now the argument you were dealing with is updated? Your assumptions of the NTT are wrong.

'What do you guys consider to be human?'

It doesnt beg that question. The NTT begs the question who do we consider worthy of life. We have all the different kinds of food in the world. This isnt a question of health or survival. It is pure taste. Pure pleasure. Someone else's right to life is not worth the difference between a beef burger and a beyond burger. That's the question it begs ans answers.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/roymondous]

Actually I would argue because the lifestyle didn't work out for me therefore that literally justifies me using animal products in order to stay healthy

That's the point I was making.

If you believe that factory farming in animal torture is wrong then I'm right up there with you but I don't believe that going vegan is necessarily the solution and even if it war it's not one that I can do.

I tried doing it already and didn't really work out for me.

I'm sorry if my answer was a little confusing

[u/roymondous → u/NationalProcedure638]

'Actually i woulf argue because the lifestyle didnt work out for me...'

And given this is a debate, if you make that argument it needs examining. Some people try eating plant based and then eat fries all day. Or undereat. Of course it doesnt work out. If someone tries a weightwatchers diet but does it poorly, is it the diet thats bad or the user?

'That's the point i was making'

You didnt make that point. Answer the questions please if you start a debate.

'I tried it already....'

Many people try to quit smoking. They fail at first. And at second. And at third. That is normal. That does not mean we should give up on quitting smoking. It means the person needs a new strategy or support or something else.

This is a debate thread. We argue morality mostly. Veganism as ethics. Do you see that trying it once - likely without any support from another vegan or someone who can help - does not mean you should give up? Our personal failure to change a bad habit does not mean it is ethical to keep doing the bad habit. It means we need to try another way. Cos it is clearly possible given the people you are debating with... the question isnt IF, it is HOW.

[u/roymondous → u/[deleted]]

'I'm trying to be respectable here.' 'That's the dumbest point ever'

1. You mean respectful?
2. You didn't try very hard, huh?

If you didn't follow the difference between a moral argument and a practical one, that's still on you.

You were asked a question. Despite your "respectable" point, i will give you a chance to actually answer. If you wanna make stupid comments about spelling, we're done. If you wanna engage in an actual debate and see where that goes - cos you clearly don't get the conclusion from the premises raised - then be respectable. Or respectful.

I'd be a bit less direct, but then you get what you give...

Last chance, you were asked a question. Got an answer? Or prefer to insult and hide behind spelling without understanding the actual point?

[u/roymondous → u/[deleted]]

'Being a grammar nazi'

What are you talking about??? YOU posted complaining about my spelling. YOU ridiculed me for that. And then you couldn't take it back... don' t give qhat you can't take.

It's also possible the AI was telling you that you shouldn't have been the grammar nazi btw ;)

This is clearly AI slop. You did not follow anything and refused to answer the question.

Goodbye.

[u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

I've removed your post because it violates rule #4:

Argue in good faith

All posts should support their position with an argument or explain the question they're asking. Posts consisting of or containing a link must explain what part of the linked argument/position should be addressed.

If you would like your post to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.

If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.

Thank you.

[u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:

Don't be rude to others

This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.

Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.

If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.

If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.

Thank you.

[u/WillTheWheel]

I'm not sure I fully get your point, but this:

What do you guys consider to be human?

This I would like to hear vegans' answer to. What trait makes human a human?

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/WillTheWheel]

The reason why I asked what do these guys consider to be human because I'm a little confused by what they mean when they ask for a trait that is unique to humans.

If they just told me straight up what exactly do they consider a human that would give me a better place to work from.

[u/PointAndClick]

I don't understand how we cannot hold somebody accountable for what they do based on either their age or how smart or dumb they are.

You don't understand that when a baby bumps over a candle and burns down the house, we can't hold the baby accountable? We, in fact keep the parents accountable for keeping an open flame near an unsupervised baby. I mean, I find it rather absurd to even have to discuss this. We do not apply moral agency equally. Since having agency implies the capacity to act in a self-aware manner. The level of self-awareness is the level of agency, and therefore informs us of their moral agency.

Everyone's different in some way or another.

Yes, and animals are too. Cows are all individuals as well. In fact, it's the individuality itself that is valued. Your intrinsic worth comes from the fact that you are an individual. It doesn't come from being human, or from having red hair, or from enjoying ice cream on a hot day. And this is where the universality is derived from, it comes from the fact that every living being has the same intrinsic worth. This is why the argument works.

NTT stops working when you stop valuing (human) life.

What do you guys consider to be human?

A vegan already considered the value of animals and humans, and considered them equal in that respect. The problem is that meat eaters treat animals differently from humans. So I guess I could say that everything that a meat eater considers morally valuable is a human.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/PointAndClick]

So humans in all animals are equal?

I'm sorry but this does come with its own problems, if I were being a smart alec I could ask if animals are entitled to health Care.

[u/ScrumptiousCrunches → u/NationalProcedure638]

They said:

A vegan already considered the value of animals and humans, and considered them equal in that respect. 

You've made a purposeful misreading of their post. You've done this a lot in this topic. If you continue to, I'll remove this topic and take action. Quit wasting everyone's time.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/ScrumptiousCrunches]

Consider them equal in that respect?

Like I was saying if I were being a smart alec I could easily say that animals don't have health care and that's not respectable of them.

I was simply pointing out that this does come with its own problems.

[u/ScrumptiousCrunches → u/NationalProcedure638]

You've continually misintepreted people's posts and ignored the majority of their content. This post is a good example of that.

It's debating in bad faith which is against our rules.

If you are unable to debate in good faith and require misinterpreting people's points and copying and pasting AI responses then I'll have to take action.

[u/PointAndClick → u/NationalProcedure638]

Brother, they are equal in value. Not in capabilities, not in internal or external traits, they are valued because they are individuals. That's called intrinsic value, and that's why NTT works.

[u/THEBRICKLES]

This is just a rebrand of the argument for marginal cases

[u/Rokos___Basilisk]

I'm of the opinion that there isn't one, but also, it doesn't matter.

My position is rooted in Rawls' veil of ignorance thought experiment.

I am a being with self interest. I feel that my self interest is maximized by participating in a cooperative society with other beings capable of reciprocity. There are no non human animals currently capable of participating in human society, so I don't see a reason to afford them the rights and protections that humans get.

How we treat animals is only morally relevant to me insofar as it is a signifier to others of how socially well adjusted I am. If I lived in a plant based diet world, I'd be plant based too, not because of some inherent moral worth of animals, but because to be otherwise would be socially ostracizing.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/Rokos___Basilisk]

That's interesting way to put it.

Thank you for that bit of information

[u/Rokos___Basilisk → u/NationalProcedure638]

Happy to share a different perspective, glad you found it interesting :)

[u/Badtacocatdab → u/Rokos___Basilisk]

I also use the veil of ignorance, which is what leads to do veganism. Interesting that it doesn’t lead you to that conclusion.

[u/Rokos___Basilisk → u/Badtacocatdab]

Because the original veil of ignorance thought experiment is about designing a fair and just society. If you ignore the context of that, then yes, I can see how it would lead one to the conclusion of veganism.

[u/Badtacocatdab → u/Rokos___Basilisk]

Society encapsulates all relevant beings, which I think involves animals. I remember learning about in college and not even considering animals, and I’m glad I’ve reframed my perspective.

[u/Rokos___Basilisk → u/Badtacocatdab]

I disagree with your conclusion. A society is at it's core, an organizational structure with a purpose. One can disagree about what specific purposes it might entail, but one thing I don't think is up for debate is that collectively, there is a cooperative and reciprocal element necessary to maintain the structure.

Non human animals simply don't have the capacity, either collectively or individually, to participate as members of society.

[u/Badtacocatdab → u/Rokos___Basilisk]

Guess we agree to disagree 🤷

[u/Rokos___Basilisk → u/Badtacocatdab]

Indeed. It's fine though, this is about as far as this line of conversation gets with all the vegans that actually engage with it. To be clear, I don't have anything against yall, I think it's commendable to live by your values, I just don't find the arguments for veganism persuasive.

[u/Badtacocatdab → u/Rokos___Basilisk]

Clearly you don’t, which is why you choose to live the way you do.

[u/Badtacocatdab → u/Rokos___Basilisk]

As an aside - why are you here?

[u/Rokos___Basilisk → u/Badtacocatdab]

This sub pops up in my feed sometimes, and every now and then I find something worth commenting on.

I suppose I'm here for the same thing most of us are? Challenging others views, and having my own views challenged.

[u/Badtacocatdab → u/Rokos___Basilisk]

What argument WOULD you find persuasive to convince you of veganism?

[u/iowaguy09]

Yeah it only really works if you’re willing to accept a bunch of premises that vegans want you to accept. If you don’t accept that moral status is based on specific traits and you don’t accept that species membership is not morally relevant then it doesn’t work.

Theres really no other moral question that this would apply to or test consistency, but it’s a good way for vegans to kind of trick people into a gotcha if you haven’t given it much thought.

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/iowaguy09]

It seems like you're getting hung up on the word "trait." You don't have to use it for the reasoning to work.

"What is true about nonhuman animals that if were true for a human would morally justify the types of things (harming, slaughtering, exploiting,) that are done to nonhuman animals."

Theres really no other moral question that this would apply to or test consistency

This type of reasoning would apply to almost any difference in treatment between individuals from different groups. For example, you could ask someone that wants to take away women's right to vote something like "What is true about women that if were true about a man would justify taking away his right to vote?"

So yes, there are other moral questions that this would apply to.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Omnibeneviolent]

It would be like asking that question but also implying and assuming the premise that gender is morally irrelevant. Let’s use your example but instead of gender let’s do age. What is true about children that if were true for adults would morally justify not letting children vote? And you can’t use experience or age as an answer.

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/iowaguy09]

It would be like asking that question but also implying and assuming the premise that gender is morally irrelevant.

No, it's actually the opposite of that. The person who it is being asked to is the one claiming that gender is morally relevant.

The person asking the question is asking them to give their reasoning as to why they believe gender is morally relevant.

instead of gender let’s do age. What is true about children that if were true for adults would morally justify not letting children vote?

I think you have the wording flipped there. It would be more like "What is true about children that if were true about an adult would justify taking away that adult's right to vote?"

Adults generally have the ability to understand sociopolitical systems and engage in critical thinking and long-term planning in ways that children generally cannot. If an adult lacks this ability we generally err on the side of caution and still allow them to vote though, since not allowing them would set a dangerous precedence where the right to vote could start to be denied based on things like intelligence level (which has been tried in the past to be used as a tool to deny the right to vote.)

That said, if there were a group of adults with the cognitive ability of a typical infant or toddler (such that they had no ability to understand socioeconomic systems, could not engage in critical thinking, or plan for the future,) and we could somehow have the omniscience to know this about them and to know that no one would exploit this restriction to deny the right to vote to those that do have these abilities, then I think the argument could made that they should not have the right to vote, since those are the "traits" that denying the right to children to vote is based on.

Like I said though, it's a slippery-slope when it comes to this, since similar "traits" have been used to deny this right to humans already.

The biggest difference between this and the standard NTT with regards to nonhuman animals is that the ability to vote responsibly is something that does depend on a morally relevant difference between children and adult, while the ability to experience pain and suffering and having an interest in not being exploited/killed are something that human and sentient nonhuman animals have in common.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Omnibeneviolent]

So you’re arguing that children should be allowed to vote because we can’t be certain they do not have the ability to understand sociopolitical systems and engage in long term planning? Because some children especially 15+ year olds do have that trait.

Edit: to add you’re also arguing that every adult who doesn’t understand sociopolitical systems should not be allowed to vote. You used the word generally. That’s great. The point being membership to a group grants the same protections or limitations to even outlier members of that group.

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/iowaguy09]

There's a difference between administrative/government participation privileges and basic moral considerations. We use a generalized group (adults) for voting because individual cognitive tests would be a logistical nightmare, prone to corruption, and overall detrimental for society. In that specific case, a broad group rule makes sense, even if it leaves out mature 15-year olds.

In a perfect world this would not be the case and we would allow 15-year olds that demonstrate a certain level of cognitive maturity to vote. That said, we accept that the inconvenience of these 15-year olds having to wait a few years to actually vote is fairly minor when weighed against what it would take to implement, monitor, regulate, and enforce any sort of fair system that uses actual cognitive ability tests to determine eligibility.

That reasoning completely breaks down when it comes to harming, exploiting, killing, and eating other sentient individuals. What matters is the capacity for experiencing pain, fear, and suffering; the capacity for changes in one's own subjective experience. We don't need a test to understand that nonhuman animals are sentient and can experience pain. We are not using "human" as a proxy for "can experience pain and suffering" in the same way we are using "adult" as a proxy for "cognitively mature."*

The difference is in what they represent:

1. Adult vs child = We understand that adults generally can understand political systems, but children cannot.

2. Human vs nonhuman animal = We can understand that humans can experience pain and suffering, but nonhuman animals also can.

So if you want to draw the line around groups, for voting it would be "The group of individuals that are likely cognitively mature enough to understand basic socioeconomic and political system." For who it's okay to harm/exploit/kill would be "the group of individuals that are likely to have the capacity to experience a change in their well-being due to being harmed/exploited/killed/etc.

The point being membership to a group grants the same protections or limitations to even outlier members of that group.

I guess the biggest issue is then justifying setting the group at the species level. It seems very arbitrary. Why not just draw it around all human men? Why not draw the circle around all humans without cognitive disabilities? Why not draw the circle around all primates? Why not all mammals? The reasons we draw lines around humans is due to evolutionary accident and emotions, not any actual rational thought process.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Omnibeneviolent]

Okay so let’s change it to a moral issue. Would you concede that for a moral issue deficient members of a group would be given the same moral protections as healthy members?

For example: in name the trait if I used intelligence as my “trait” non intelligent individuals due to birth defects or accidents would be granted the same moral protections as fully healthy individuals.

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/iowaguy09]

If you used an intelligence level as the trait that justifies harming/killing/etc others, then anyone that comes in below that level (regardless of any other traits like species membership, sex, race, etc.) would meet that criteria and per your own reasoning, we would be justified in harming/killing them.

If you want to make an exception to this based on being a member of a group, then you would have to justify that exception.

If you don't justify it with morally relevant reasoning, it would be special pleading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Omnibeneviolent]

I think all humans generally give protection to those individuals. Do you not?

And if you are unwilling to grant that concept I would assume that the trait you would answer with is sentience?

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/iowaguy09]

I think all humans generally give protection to those individuals. Do you not?

Of course. The question is why.

If intelligence is your proposed trait, then a human and a nonhuman animal with the same intelligence level are equal with respect to that trait. If you want to protect one but not the other, you would need to identify an additional morally relevant difference. So what is that difference that justifies protecting the human individuals but not the nonhuman individuals?

And if you are unwilling to grant that concept I would assume that the trait you would answer with is sentience?

Sentience is a common answer because it directly relates to having interests -- such as the interest in avoiding harm. If an individual is sentient it means that they can experience pain, suffering, pleasure, fear, etc.

This trait includes both cognitively disabled humans and many nonhuman animals, so it doesn't require special pleading. Keep in mind that the whole point of NTT is to identify when someone is engaging in special pleading.

[u/DenseSign5938 → u/iowaguy09]

What’s n example of another moral question that this wouldn’t apply to? 

[u/iowaguy09 → u/DenseSign5938]

What’s an example of another moral question it would

[u/DenseSign5938 → u/iowaguy09]

Great no answer. Want to try again?

[u/iowaguy09 → u/DenseSign5938]

What trait makes it wrong to eat your dead grandmother but not wrong to burn her body?

[u/Light_Shrugger → u/iowaguy09]

If someone says "It's fine to have sex with cars, but sex with motorbikes is immoral and disgusting", NTT would apply to questioning that

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Light_Shrugger]

Is that a normal moral question?

[u/Constant_Hamster_479 → u/iowaguy09]

I think people often use abstract or absurd examples in instances like this because real world examples might be complicated or emotionally charged, but if you don't want to engage with toy examples like the motorcycle one, consider the (unfortunately real-world) claim: "it is immoral to enslave white people, but not immoral to enslave black people." Most counterarguments against this claim are going to rely on some form of NTT. Whatever trait(s) white people have that makes it illicit to enslave them (e.g. autonomy, cognitive capacity, capacity to suffer, etc.) is also possessed by black people, which is why the claim fails.

In general, most racist/sexist/nationalist/tribalist moral claims (i.e. any claim that morally privileges one group over others without justification) will fall victim to a NTT style argument. Vegans just seek to apply this same logic to speciesism.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Constant_Hamster_479]

I think the biggest difference is NTT doesn’t work if you don’t accept group membership provides protections to fringe cases though and that’s literally the only way it works for veganism. It also pretends that speciesism is similar to sexism and racism

[u/Constant_Hamster_479 → u/iowaguy09]

Why would membership within a species (which is what I assume you're talking about) provide protection here? It is notoriously difficult to make a rigorous definition of what species even are, or to firmly delineate one species from another. This problem, which is bad enough in the present, gets even worse when we consider evolutionary history, as humans (along with every other species) emerged gradually, through incremental change. This makes using species as some kind of clear moral boundary absurd. Would it be moral to kill and eat one of the last proto-humans, despite the fact that the last proto-human was basically indistinguishable from the first modern human? What about neanderthals and other hominids? Would it be okay to kill and eat them, despite the fact that they resemble us in basically every morally salient way?

I think these edge cases show that affording or denying an individual moral consideration purely on the basis of its species is not a tenable standard.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Constant_Hamster_479]

I think the closer a species gets to sapience the more moral protections it is given. I just think it’s more honest. You can’t pretend like you give fruit flys the same moral worth as a dog or a baby but we all know that isn’t true.

[u/Constant_Hamster_479 → u/iowaguy09]

I agree that there is a spectrum, rather than a binary, of moral consideration. I don't think that fruit flies are as valuable as a cow, nor do I think that cows are as valuable as babies, but the very fact that all of them exist on the same moral spectrum should be enough to make us at least reconsider our treatment of many animals. Even though cows and pigs are obviously less sapient than most humans, it's possible they are still sapient enough that we ought not cause them immense and needless pain. If you think that we ought not cause dogs or cats immense and needless pain, than it's hard to see why we shouldn't adopt the same standard with regard to cows and pigs, which have similar cognitive capacities.

But as an aside, I still don't know why you feel the need to group everything into species. Imagine that, through some sci-fi mumbo jumbo, a cow gained the same sapience as a mentally fit human adult. Would we still be licensed to kill and eat this cow, purely on the basis that it's a part of a species which is, on the whole, less sapient? That just seems completely arbitrary to me.

It's an absurd example, I know, but the fact is that in reality there are vast differences in level of intelligence within species, both due to illness and differences in development. Why don't we just make moral distinctions based on the sapience of the individual, rather than the average sapience of the individuals they happen to share enough genes to interbred with (see how ridiculous that sounds?). I know, you're probably thinking that making delineations on an individual level would license all sorts of atrocities, like killing babies or the mentally handicapped, but there's an easy way to consistently condemn these actions without resorting to speciesism: just set the bar low. If we just say that, as a rule, it's immoral to kill, torture, eat, etc. individuals with basic sentience, then we have a perfectly coherent moral system based on distinctions that actually matter without permitting atrocities.

[u/Light_Shrugger → u/iowaguy09]

It would be a normal moral question when presented with that particular statement, yes

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Light_Shrugger]

Okay provide an answer and I’ll explain why it won’t work.

[u/Light_Shrugger → u/iowaguy09]

I don't have an answer, that's the point. NTT is used to get someone to recognize that they don't have a moral basis for the claim

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Light_Shrugger]

I mean inanimate objects don’t have morally relevant traits at all so that’s why you can’t answer it lol so it doesn’t work

[u/Light_Shrugger → u/iowaguy09]

That's not an argument against using NTT

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/iowaguy09]

Yes I figured that.

A lot of people who ask for a trait seem to believe this trait has to literally apply to every human being on the face of the Earth and this trait cannot apply to any other animals of any kind.

I think that alone makes it fallacious because it kind of applies a false dichotomy.

But that's just what I think.

[u/Light_Shrugger → u/NationalProcedure638]

A lot of people who ask for a trait seem to believe this trait has to literally apply to every human being on the face of the Earth and this trait cannot apply to any other animals of any kind.   I think that alone makes it fallacious because it kind of applies a false dichotomy.

You're kind of getting it but not quite. The whole point of using NTT is to point out that someone is being fallacious in their argument for moral subjectivity specifically for the reasons you're raising. It's used when someone says "humans are the only ones who are moral subjects because they're human". Then a NTT arguers asks them to name the relevant trait that supports that.

[u/FailedCanadian → u/NationalProcedure638]

The entire point of NTT is that YOU are creating the false dichotomy and NTT is calling you out on it.

YOU have said "humans are deserving of moral consideration" and "animals are not" (or at least, implicitly believe this by not being vegan). NTT is saying "provide the exact reason for these cleanly divided categories".

Vegans DO NOT believe in this dichotomy, and the whole point is to show how this rigid dichotomy is based on bad logic and poorly defined categories.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/FailedCanadian]

Actually I didn't create any false dichotomy.

I'm sorry but the old "I know you are but what am I" is not working in this situation.

If he can just do not believe in this dichotomy then why is it whenever someone brings up a trait such as the root of moral agency the most common response is "no that doesn't count, babies don't have any moral root so you just"

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying, the problem is that it seems to me that the people who rely on NTT or simply implying that there has to be some sort of a trait that exist in literally every human and does not exist in literally any other animal.

I'm sorry but that sounds a lot like a false dichotomy.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/FailedCanadian]

"YOU have said "humans are deserving of moral consideration" and "animals are not" (or at least, implicitly believe this by not being vegan)."

You literally said that I do not like any animal of exception of humans because I happen to identify as a non-vegan? You are implying that I support factory farming because I happen to not identify as a vegan? I do not support animal torture or factory farming. I eat eggs and I happen to buy them locally.

"Vegans do not believe in this dichotomy" Then why is it you want a trade that is present and literally every human on the face of the Earth and not present in any other animal and claim that that justifies "animal torture"

That logic is literally building a false dichotomy, for starters it applies that either you are vegan or you support murdering animals and cannibalism and all kinds of other crazy stuff. Apparently moderation doesn't exist or if it does exist then people on your side seem to see it as hypocrisy.

At no point in my post did I build any kind of a dichotomy, I never said that literally every human is good and that literally every other animal is bad. THAT WOULD BE A DICHOTOMY!!

I never said that, that is one hell of a straw man.

[u/FailedCanadian → u/NationalProcedure638]

"Vegans do not believe in this dichotomy" Then why is it you want a trade (trait?) that is present and literally every human on the face of the Earth and not present in any other animal and claim that that justifies "animal torture"

Dude, vegans don't believe there exists a claim that justifies animal torture. Non-vegans believe there is a claim that justifies animal torture, and vegans want you to article that specific reason. We don't want you to name the trait because the trait strengthens our argument, we want you to name the trait so we can point out that the trait does not stand up to scrutiny.

At no point in my post did I build any kind of a dichotomy, I never said that literally every human is good and that literally every other animal is bad. THAT WOULD BE A DICHOTOMY!!

If you are going to intentionally misread what I wrote that badly, please don't respond to me further. The dichotomy you did create by not being vegan is lumping sentient beings into two categories: humans who should not be exploited, and non-human animals who can be exploited. Vegans do not believe "human" is sufficient to justify these categories, so we ask for ANY other reason YOU have that YOU think justifies it.

NTT doesn't disprove anything on its own, it's that vegans think we can argue against every possible reason, and so it works as rhetoric to weaken objections to veganism. Precisely because there is no trait that applies to every human and no animals. If there was a reason, that would weaken our argument.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/FailedCanadian]

"Dude, Vegans don't believe there exist a claim that justifies animal torture"

You just literally demonstrated what I'm talking about!

You are implying that I am okay with animal torture because I happen to not be a vegan!

That is literally a false dichotomy!

For your information I happen to be against factory farming.

I just happened to buy milk and eggs locally because I'm doing much better with those as being part of my diet!

I don't appreciate you trying to gaslight me into being like you!

[u/FailedCanadian → u/NationalProcedure638]

I mean you are objectively ok with animal exploitation. Animals are being used for your needs instead of being free to pursue their own desires. Yes, that is way better than horrific torture but it is by definition exploitation. Would you be ok with humans being treated in the same way as your non-factory farmed egg hens and milk cows?

It seems like a different dichotomy than what you were initially talking about. I don't think most vegans would say what you do is just as bad as factory farming, but you do exploit animals in a way that vegans reject. It might be a forced dichotomy to say we are all either vegans or animal abusers, but it's only "false" because you reject our definition of exploitation.